Boykin v. State

JAYMARRI RODNEY BOYKIN v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 2135

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2018

April 30, 2020

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County

Case No. C-02-CR-16-001584

UNREPORTED

Graeff, Beachley, Eyler, James R. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Graeff, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Appellant, Jaymarri Rodney Boykin, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County of first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, illegal possession of a regulated firearm, firearm possession by a minor, and wearing, carrying or transporting a handgun on the person. The court sentenced appellant to life for the conviction of first-degree murder, twenty years consecutive for the conviction of use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, the first five years without possibility of parole, and five years concurrent for the conviction of illegal possession of a regulated firearm. The remaining convictions were merged for sentencing.

On appeal, appellant presents the following questions for this Court's review:

1. Did the circuit court err in denying appellant's motion to exclude evidence pertaining to the gunshot residue analysis done on his thigh?

2. Was the evidence sufficient to sustain appellant's convictions?

For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On Sunday, June 26, 2016, at approximately 4:15 p.m., a masked shooter fatally shot Shaun Crowdy thirteen times as he sat in the driver's seat of a vehicle in the 1400 block of Tyler Avenue in Annapolis, Maryland. The State's main evidence at trial included witness testimony that appellant was in the area at the time of the shooting wearing clothing similar to that worn by Mr. Crowdy's assailant, appellant's DNA found on a black ski mask recovered near the scene that matched appellant's DNA profile, and gunshot residue found on appellant's inner right thigh.¹ The police were unable to find the weapon and no witness could specifically identify appellant as the masked shooter.

At trial, the State called Robert Wells, who was visiting his daughter and grandchildren in the area on that Sunday. Mr. Wells testified that, when he stepped outside his daughter's house for a cigarette, he heard gunshots. Mr. Wells looked up and saw a man shooting a handgun towards a dark-colored car parked near the dumpster. The shooter "was taking care of his business and leaving, you know. . . . He was just releasing his gun fire." The shooter was between six feet one inch and six feet five inches tall, he weighed 180 pounds, and he was wearing a dark ski mask pulled down over his face, a white shirt, and blue jeans. After ceasing fire, the shooter fled into the woods.

Cecilia Parker also lived nearby. She was familiar with appellant and saw him, wearing a white t-shirt and blue jean shorts, in the parking lot near her house earlier that day. Later that afternoon, while she was upstairs inside her house, Ms. Parker heard a loud noise that she thought was firecrackers, followed by screaming. After Ms. Parker's daughter ran into the house, Ms. Parker went outside and saw two people running around the corner. One was wearing a black ski mask, long blue jean shorts, and a white shirt. Ms. Parker reiterated that appellant was wearing similar attire when she saw him earlier that same day. She also testified that the person running away appeared to be the same height as appellant. On cross-examination, Ms. Parker testified that she did not see appellant with a gun that day.²

Keetah Matthews, who lived on Tyler Avenue, testified that she saw appellant in the neighborhood earlier that Sunday wearing a white t-shirt and blue jeans.³ That afternoon, appellant came by Matthews' house and asked to use her bathroom. He washed his hands and used a paper towel. Afterwards, Ms. Matthews gave appellant a ride to his mother's house.

Police surveillance cameras showed that Ms. Matthews drove out of the neighborhood at 4:18:43 p.m., approximately five minutes after the first 911 call was received. Other cameras depicted appellant getting out of Ms. Matthews' vehicle near his mother's house, while wearing a white shirt. On cross-examination, Ms. Matthews testified she did not hear gunshots and did not see appellant with a gun that day.

Appellant was arrested at approximately 11:20 p.m. that day. He was transported to the Annapolis City Police Station, where Officer Dan Dekowsy and Detective Charles Bealefield collected appellant's clothing and observed what appeared to be dried blood on appellant's right leg in an area covered by a Band-Aid. After appellant removed the bandage, Officer Dekowsky saw an open wound on appellant's leg. Detective Bealefield testified that this area is referred to as "the dip," a location where people often store firearms. Officer Dekowsky then collected a gunshot residue ("GSR") swab from appellant's right inner thigh, as well as from both his hands.

These swabs were later sent to the RJ Lee Group for examination. As discussed in more detail infra, Stephanie Hrico, accepted as an expert in gunshot residue, testified that gunshot residue was present on appellant's right leg.

Although a gun was never recovered, thirteen .40 caliber fired cartridge cases, as well as a black ski mask, were found in the neighborhood following the shooting. Ashley Hayes, an expert in forensic DNA analysis, testified that a mixture of DNA from at least four individuals was found, both inside and outside the mask, and that the major component of both matched appellant's known DNA profile. Ms. Hayes concluded that the chances of finding another unrelated individual who has the same profile as the major component found on the inside and the outside of this mask is approximately 1 in 190 nonillion.⁴

We will include additional details, as warranted, in the following discussion.

DISCUSSION

I.

Appellant's first issue concerns the gunshot residue evidence found on his person after he was brought to the police station. He contends that the court erred in denying his motion to exclude this evidence for three reasons: (1) the evidence, and the supporting expert testimony, did not satisfy the requirements of the Frye-Reed test; (2) there was an insufficient factual basis for the expert's testimony pursuant to Maryland Rule 5-702; and, (3) the evidence was unfairly prejudicial and that prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value.

The State contends that only the Frye-Reed argument is preserved for appellate review. In any event, it asserts that appellant's arguments fail on the merits.

A.Proceedings Below

1.Suppression Hearing

Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress the results of the GSR analysis performed in this case. He stated that, after he was arrested on outstanding bench warrants in unrelated cases, both his hands and an area near a wound on his upper right leg were tested for GSR. Particles characteristic of GSR were found on his left hand and right leg. Appellant argued that, although GSR evidence generally may be admissible under Frye- Reed,⁵ the results should be excluded here because there was no evidence linking the GSR found on his leg to the shooting in this case, and any probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Appellant also argued that, pursuant to Maryland Rule 5-702, there was an inadequate factual basis for the GSR expert's testimony. He asserted that, in the absence of evidence that he "tucked a gun, specifically the gun used in this homicide, into his waist-band," it was "entirely conjecture that [his leg] wound was caused by the hot barrel of a firearm."

The State filed a response asserting that the GSR tended to show that appellant was in the proximity of a handgun, which was the type of weapon used to murder the victim in this case. It argued that "the reason for the burn mark and the presence of GSR on" the right hand and inner thigh was because "the Defendant shot a firearm and then shoved it down his pant leg as he was running from the scene." The State noted that a witness would testify that she saw appellant wash his hands after the shooting. It argued that the factual basis for the expert's opinion was adequate, and the evidence was direct evidence of appellant's involvement in the murder.

Appellant then filed a third motion to exclude the GSR results and expert's opinion, arguing: (1) the evidence was unreliable based on the "significant possibility of collection contamination," especially with respect to appellant's left hand; (2) the testimony was unreliable because the testing laboratory "failed to follow scientific guidelines for methods, principles and analysis"; and (3) the State could not demonstrate, under Frye-Reed, that the GSR test results were reliable with respect to appellant's left hand. With respect to the Frye-Reed argument, appellant stated:

The GSR report found zero GSR particles on Mr. Boykin's right and left hand. With regard to his left hand, five (5) two-component particles were found. There is no scientific consensus that such a low number of GSR particles can meet the threshold for reliability. In fact, as mentioned above, the FBI has established a minimum of three GSR particles before concluding that there was exposure to GSR.

To the extent that the State intends to rely on non-GSR particle material with one or two "component" particles, it likewise cannot demonstrate reliability. In the first place, the GSR Report itself does not classify such particle matters as "GSR." Moreover, there is no scientific consensus that such "component" particles reliability demonstrate GSR. It is entirely possible that the component particles

...